## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Agents collaborate through discovery, delegation, dependencies, and
governed approvals
> - These optional operations need stable contracts before any run may
discover them
> - The core action contracts are already isolated in the lower stack
> - This pull request adds the 13 collaboration and governance action
definitions
> - It does not grant claims or bind production services
> - The benefit is a reviewable contract layer for later run-scoped
authorization
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
packages/paperclip-runner protocol action contracts
**Problem or motivation**
Optional collaboration operations need one provider-neutral definition
for policy metadata, documentation, live and scenario schemas, and
canonical examples.
**Proposed solution**
Add one immutable module for each discovery, delegation, dependency, and
governance action. Add a collaboration aggregate and validate all
examples with JSON Schema.
**Alternatives considered**
These contracts could land with executable authorization. That would
make contract review depend on runtime policy and server service
bindings.
**Roadmap alignment**
This supports the existing experimental Paperclip Runner rollout. It
does not make any optional operation discoverable or invocable.
## What Changed
- Add 13 collaboration and governance action definitions.
- Add immutable policy, schema, documentation, and example data.
- Add a collaboration-only aggregate.
- Validate every action example against its declared schema.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner test:typescript`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner typecheck:typescript`
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
- The branch changes 15 files relative to its declared base.
## Risks
Low production risk. The declarations do not grant claims or contain
executable service bindings. Tests require optional placement, immutable
metadata, stable identities, and schema-valid examples.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, `gpt-5`, with agentic reasoning, tool use, and code
execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either linked an existing public issue or described the
issue in-PR
- [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues
or links
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Runner tools need stable provider-neutral action contracts
> - Core task work must use the same names, policy metadata, schemas,
and examples on every provider surface
> - A single large 41-action review would hide contract drift
> - This pull request adds only the 14 always-present core action
definitions
> - It does not grant discovery or execution authority
> - The benefit is a reviewable immutable contract base for later
authorization wiring
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
packages/paperclip-runner protocol action contracts
**Problem or motivation**
The runner has an older compact catalog, but it does not single-source
the full policy metadata, documentation, live shape, scenario shape, and
examples for each core action.
**Proposed solution**
Add one immutable definition module per core action. Add an internal
core aggregate and validate every input and output example against its
declared JSON Schema. Keep all production authorization and execution
unavailable.
**Alternatives considered**
All 41 action definitions could land in one pull request. That would
create more than 7,000 changed lines and reduce useful review depth.
**Roadmap alignment**
This supports the existing experimental Paperclip Runner rollout. It
does not enable the adapter or expose any new production tool.
## What Changed
- Add 14 core protocol action definitions.
- Add immutable policy, schema, documentation, and example data for each
action.
- Add a deep-freeze helper and a core-only aggregate.
- Validate all core examples with JSON Schema.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner test:typescript`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner typecheck:typescript`
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
- The branch changes 17 files relative to its declared base.
## Risks
Low production risk. These declarations do not contain executable
authorization or service bindings. The main risk is schema drift. Tests
validate operation identity, placement, immutability, and canonical
examples.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, `gpt-5`, with agentic reasoning, tool use, and code
execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either linked an existing public issue or described the
issue in-PR
- [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues
or links
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Semantic operations need a control plane that owns authorization and
state changes
> - Conformance tests need this authority without a live server or
database
> - The existing in-memory port covers transport facts but not
capability-governed domains
> - This pull request adds a deterministic capability-aware control
plane for tests
> - It keeps the implementation behind the package testing entry point
> - The benefit is repeatable authorization and mutation tests before
production wiring lands
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
packages/paperclip-runner testing and semantic capability contracts
**Problem or motivation**
Later semantic action slices need deterministic company, actor, task,
governance, workspace, secret, budget, routine, and audit state. A live
Paperclip server would make those tests slow and environment-dependent.
**Proposed solution**
Add serializable capability fixture types and an in-memory control-plane
adapter. Enforce company scope, claims, roles, idempotency, redaction,
faults, and audit records. Export the adapter only from the testing
entry point.
**Alternatives considered**
The tests could mock each action separately. That would duplicate
authorization rules and would not verify state transitions across
multiple actions.
**Roadmap alignment**
This supports the existing experimental Paperclip Runner rollout. It
does not enable production semantic operations or change app execution.
## What Changed
- Add deterministic capability fixture types and seed state.
- Add an in-memory capability control-plane adapter.
- Enforce run, company, actor, claim, role, and idempotency boundaries.
- Model governed task, document, interaction, workspace, secret,
routine, and audit changes.
- Add deterministic tests and testing-entry-point exports.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner test:typescript`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner typecheck:typescript`
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
- The branch changes 5 files relative to its declared base.
## Risks
The main risk is a permissive mock that hides a production authorization
error. The adapter fails closed for missing claims, wrong roles,
cross-company access, duplicate mutations, invalid state, and restricted
secret access. Tests cover each fixture domain and serialized restore
behavior.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, `gpt-5`, with agentic reasoning, tool use, and code
execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either linked an existing public issue or described the
issue in-PR
- [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues
or links
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The runner needs repeatable tests at the provider and control-plane
boundaries
> - Network services and live providers cannot produce deterministic
conformance results
> - Small in-memory adapters can exercise the same public contracts
without production side effects
> - This pull request adds a deterministic harness driver, control-plane
adapter, and fixture runner
> - It exposes these helpers only from the testing entry point
> - The benefit is stable cross-boundary verification for later runtime
changes
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
packages/paperclip-runner testing and conformance support
**Problem or motivation**
The public runner contracts have unit tests, but later provider and
server slices need a deterministic way to exercise session, event,
replay, checkpoint, and result behavior together.
**Proposed solution**
Add in-memory implementations of the harness-driver and control-plane
ports. Add a canonical conformance fixture and runner. Export these
utilities only from `@paperclipai/paperclip-runner/testing`.
**Alternatives considered**
The tests could start a real provider or server. That would make the
conformance gate slower, less portable, and dependent on credentials or
network state.
**Roadmap alignment**
This supports the existing experimental Paperclip Runner rollout. It
does not enable a production adapter or change current app execution.
## What Changed
- Add a deterministic harness-driver implementation.
- Add an in-memory control-plane adapter with replay and checkpoint
support.
- Add a canonical provider-neutral conformance fixture.
- Add a reusable conformance runner and contract tests.
- Export the helpers from the package testing entry point only.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner test:typescript`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner typecheck:typescript`
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
- The branch changes 10 files relative to its declared base.
## Risks
Low risk. This pull request adds test-only adapters and conformance
helpers. It does not select a runtime or change production behavior.
Contract tests verify event identity, replay, checkpoints, and
deterministic results.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, `gpt-5`, with agentic reasoning, tool use, and code
execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either linked an existing public issue or described the
issue in-PR
- [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues
or links
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Semantic tools cross a trust boundary between a provider and the
control plane
> - Durable runs need exact input, result, denial, duplicate, and
reconciliation receipts
> - Replay must reject unsupported required versions and mismatched
receipt pairs
> - This pull request adds the receipt builders and deterministic replay
fixtures
> - It keeps newer sequence and gap safety limits from the current stack
> - The benefit is auditable semantic activity before more providers use
it
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
packages/paperclip-runner
**Problem or motivation**
Semantic tool calls have basic authorization records, but durable replay
does not yet cover reconciled calls, denial redaction, duplicate
receipts, governance targets, or artifact references.
**Proposed solution**
Add bounded semantic receipt builders, a reconciled phase, strict pair
binding, fail-closed version checks, and generated replay oracles for
the important lifecycle cases.
**Alternatives considered**
The runner could store provider-native tool payloads. That would weaken
protocol portability and make redaction and retry behavior
provider-specific.
**Roadmap alignment**
This supports the existing experimental Paperclip Runner rollout. It
does not enable a production adapter.
## What Changed
- Add semantic input and result receipt builders.
- Add optional reconciliation receipts for pending calls.
- Reject unsupported semantic receipt versions.
- Validate receipt correlation, operation, idempotency, and digest
bindings.
- Add deterministic replay fixtures and generated golden outputs.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner test:typescript`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner typecheck:typescript`
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
- Replay golden and protocol manifest checks pass.
- The branch changes 27 files relative to its declared base.
## Risks
The main risk is accepting a receipt that belongs to another call or
replaying a duplicate as a new mutation. Binding checks compare
correlation, operation, idempotency, and content digest fields. Fixtures
cover denials, duplicates, governance chains, optional fields,
artifacts, and unsupported versions.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, `gpt-5`, with agentic reasoning, tool use, and code
execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either linked an existing public issue or described the
issue in-PR
- [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues
or links
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The Paperclip Runner package needs one provider-neutral session loop
> - Native execution contracts now define the accepted input and output
> - Backends still need bounded execution, recovery, and control-plane
ports
> - This pull request adds that package-local session runtime
> - It does not change server runtime selection or start the
experimental runner
> - The benefit is a tested execution core for later provider and server
layers
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
packages/paperclip-runner
**Problem or motivation**
The runner contracts do not yet have a shared session loop. Each backend
would otherwise duplicate event handoff, terminal handling, recovery
cursors, timeouts, and checkpoint behavior.
**Proposed solution**
Add the native session runtime, backend interfaces, control-plane port,
harness driver contract, deterministic conformance helpers, and bounded
tests.
**Alternatives considered**
The server could own this loop. That would mix provider process behavior
with server persistence and authority logic.
**Roadmap alignment**
This is part of the existing experimental Paperclip Runner rollout. It
does not enable a production adapter.
## What Changed
- Add a provider-neutral native session execution loop.
- Add recovery cursor reconciliation and checkpoint hooks.
- Add bounded timeout and governed-wait behavior.
- Add harness driver and control-plane conformance helpers.
- Add deterministic backend and session runtime tests.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner test:typescript`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner typecheck:typescript`
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
- Protocol generation and manifest checks pass.
- The branch changes 14 files relative to its declared base.
## Risks
The main risk is a session that hangs, duplicates an event, or restores
the wrong cursor after reconnect. Tests cover terminal events, timeouts,
durable handoff, duplicate receipts, recovery, continuity breaks, and
checkpoint updates. The change remains package-local.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, `gpt-5`, with agentic reasoning, tool use, and code
execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The Paperclip Runner package gives providers one stable execution
boundary
> - Later runner backends need one validated input and result contract
> - Provider-specific shapes cannot leak into server orchestration
> - This pull request adds the provider-neutral native execution
contracts
> - It also keeps legacy input versions readable while it validates new
input strictly
> - The benefit is a stable boundary for later backend and server pull
requests
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
packages/paperclip-runner
**Problem or motivation**
The runner has protocol transport and Codex support, but later backends
do not have one public contract for execution input, runtime context,
completion output, and recovery state.
**Proposed solution**
Add versioned native execution input parsers, model envelopes,
completion result helpers, runtime context contracts, and durable
recovery types. Keep these changes package-local. Do not change server
runtime selection.
**Alternatives considered**
Each provider could define its own server-facing input. That would
couple server orchestration to provider details and make compatibility
harder to verify.
**Roadmap alignment**
This is part of the existing experimental Paperclip Runner rollout. It
does not enable a new production adapter.
## What Changed
- Add versioned native execution input contracts and strict parsers.
- Add provider-neutral runtime context and completion contracts.
- Add durable recovery and local runner types.
- Add structured question compatibility and parser tests.
- Export only the contracts that exist in this stack layer.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner test:typescript`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner typecheck:typescript`
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- Protocol generation and manifest checks pass.
- The branch changes 12 files relative to its declared base.
## Risks
The main risk is accepting malformed or future input as a supported
contract. The parsers reject unknown required versions and unknown
fields. The change is package-local and does not select or start the
experimental runner.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, `gpt-5`, with agentic reasoning, tool use, and code
execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - The runner already persists PRP events, but provider-native activity
needs one bounded, provider-neutral vocabulary before additional
providers can be added safely.
> - The protocol catalog must describe capabilities without enabling or
authorizing a provider.
> - Provider normalization must not require an ACPX runtime dependency
merely to compile the shared event layer.
> - This pull request adds the event contract and pure normalizers only;
provider transports and production selection remain unchanged.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
This is the first follow-up stacked on #12321. Codex, OpenCode, and ACP
runtimes expose different activity shapes. Without canonical
normalization, downstream task threads and traces would need
provider-specific branching and could retain unbounded or unsafe
payloads.
## What Changed
- Expand the PRP provider descriptor and canonical activity event
families.
- Add bounded Codex, OpenCode, and ACP event normalizers for plans,
tools, research, delegation, artifacts, review, safety, waits, and
notices.
- Preserve strict schema validation and regenerate the checked-in schema
bundle and manifest.
- Use a structural ACP event input so the provider-neutral layer does
not introduce or authorize an ACPX runtime dependency.
- Export the provider-event contract from the existing package root.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner typecheck:typescript`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner test:typescript` — 11
files and 88 tests passed.
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
- `git diff --check`
- The local full repository runner reached unrelated macOS
workspace-path fixture failures; the affected runner suites pass and the
repository CI shards are the handoff authority.
- Diff against the declared base: 8 files.
## Compatibility Boundary
- No provider transport, adapter, server route, feature flag, or runtime
selection changes.
- Catalog presence does not authorize discovery or execution.
- Existing Codex execution continues through its current path.
- No dependency, migration, workflow, or lockfile change.
## Risks
The main risk is accepting malformed or unbounded provider payloads.
Schema validation remains fail-closed, text/output fields are bounded
and redacted, unsafe paths and URLs are discarded, and representative
variants for every declared event family are covered by tests.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 family. The client does not expose the exact
deployment ID or context window. Agentic reasoning, tool use, and code
execution were enabled.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have described the issue in-PR following the relevant template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal task
identifier
- [x] I have run the affected local tests and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated the compatibility notes for this change
- [x] I have considered and documented risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open actionable comments
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The experimental Paperclip Runner can execute a guarded Codex run
and persist provider-neutral events.
> - The task page still reads direct-adapter transcripts and cannot
present those native events.
> - Structured runner questions must also use the existing task
interaction experience.
> - Runtime selection must use the persisted run mode, not an adapter
name or a current feature flag.
> - This pull request projects native events and questions into the
existing task thread.
> - Direct adapters keep their existing transcript, composer,
interaction, and finalization paths.
> - The benefit is a complete native Codex task thread without a
behavior change for existing adapters.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #12202. This pull request replaces that stale implementation on
current `master`.
**What happened?**
The server persists native runner events and structured input requests.
The task page only consumes direct-adapter transcripts. A native run
therefore cannot present a complete transcript, usage, or question flow
through the normal task experience.
**Expected behavior**
Native runs project persisted provider-neutral events into the existing
task thread. Native structured questions use the existing interaction
card. Direct adapters retain their current behavior.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Enable the experimental runner.
2. Start a native Codex run that emits progress, usage, a structured
question, and a final reply.
3. Open the task page.
4. Observe that the direct-adapter transcript path cannot project the
native event records.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`master` at `67f9867bc`.
## What Changed
- Add the canonical structured-question validator and shared contract
exports.
- Materialize native input requests as existing task interactions.
- Validate native answers and deliver them through the durable
question-response receipt.
- Resume the original PRP request with an idempotent `request.resolve`
command.
- Project native messages, tool activity, cumulative usage, and final
replies into the existing transcript model.
- Propagate persisted `runtimeMode` to the task page and select native
handling only for `runtimeMode: "native"`.
- Expire pending interactions through the shared issue service on every
terminal transition, including decisions, stalled reviews, tree control,
and pipeline retry cleanup.
- Queue native run cancellation while a transaction is open and execute
it only after the owning transaction commits.
- Keep nonterminal and non-runner issue paths on their existing service
call shapes and behavior.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed, including the
Rust runner release build and protocol/catalog drift gates.
- Focused native-thread and lifecycle suites — 18 files and 481 tests
passed during review.
- `issue-execution-policy-routes.test.ts` — 19/19 passed after the final
transactional-queue expectation update.
- `issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts` — 87/87 passed in the
final isolated compatibility rerun.
- GitHub Actions — policy, build, canary, typecheck/release registry, 5
serialized server shards, 8 general-test shards, 3 browser shards, and
both aggregate gates passed on `7793f3193`.
- Security — Snyk, Socket Project Report, Socket PR Alerts, and
Superagent passed.
- Greptile — 5/5 on `7793f3193`; all actionable review threads resolved.
- `git diff --check` — passed.
- Diff against `master`: 44 files.
## Compatibility Boundary
- Native transcript polling only runs when the persisted run reports
`runtimeMode: "native"`.
- Missing or legacy runtime modes continue through
`useLiveRunTranscripts`.
- Legacy questions keep the existing optional free-text choice.
- Native closed select sets can suppress that legacy fallback.
- Terminal cleanup uses the same issue service for native and legacy
interactions; only a bound native question schedules a native run
cancellation.
- Native cancellation happens after transaction commit, so failed or
rolled-back writes do not cancel a still-valid run.
- The durable delivery service checks the original native request before
it considers a continuation run.
- This pull request adds no migration, dependency, workflow, manifest,
or lockfile change.
## Risks
The main risk is routing a direct-adapter task through native handling
or changing terminal issue behavior. The implementation selects the
native path only from persisted runtime facts, retains the existing
nonterminal call shape, and schedules native cancellation only for a
validated bound native question after commit. Focused and
repository-wide tests cover both paths. Native requests remain bound to
the company, issue, run, and agent; answers are validated, durable, and
idempotent across reconnects.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 family. The client does not expose the exact
deployment ID or context window. Agentic reasoning, tool use, and code
execution were enabled.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run the affected local tests and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated the compatibility notes for this change
- [x] I have considered and documented risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I addressed all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting
merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip uses one lockfile for all workspace packages.
> - The lockfile makes dependency installation repeatable.
> - The root manifest now includes AgentMail.
> - The old lockfile did not include AgentMail.
> - A frozen installation stopped before deployment.
> - This pull request refreshes the lockfile through the master
workflow.
> - The refresh makes the frozen installation complete again.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
The root manifest declared `agentmail@^0.5.14`. The root lockfile did
not contain that dependency. The frozen installation failed.
**Expected behavior**
The lockfile must contain all root dependencies. A frozen installation
must complete without changing the lockfile.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Check out commit `4310b0c947727ef1ce1a6de3f4a556cd6a1e0ae1`.
2. Run `NODE_ENV=development CI=true pnpm install --frozen-lockfile
--force`.
3. Observe the missing dependency error.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`4310b0c947727ef1ce1a6de3f4a556cd6a1e0ae1`
**Deployment mode**
A self-hosted Linux arm64 deployment uses the master branch.
## What Changed
- Added `agentmail@^0.5.14` to the root lockfile importer.
- Added the dependency resolutions required by the current workspace
manifests.
- Kept the change limited to `pnpm-lock.yaml`.
## Verification
- Used Node.js 24.20.0 and pnpm 9.15.4.
- Ran `NODE_ENV=development CI=true pnpm install --frozen-lockfile
--force`.
- Confirmed that the command completed successfully.
- Confirmed that the command did not change `pnpm-lock.yaml`.
## Risks
- Risk is low because this pull request changes only the generated
lockfile.
- The refresh adds packages that the current manifests already declare.
- A future manifest change can require another lockfile refresh.
> This pull request does not change a core feature. It does not overlap
with `ROADMAP.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex used the `gpt-5` model. The runtime did not provide the
context-window size. The model used reasoning, shell tools, and code
execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Co-authored-by: lockfile-bot <lockfile-bot@users.noreply.github.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The task-drain service controls when task execution can start and
stop.
> - The service had compensation paths for states that its validators or
recovery process already handle.
> - These paths added rollback state and a stuck-claim marker without
improving normal drain behavior.
> - This pull request removes the unreachable TTL clamp, audit rollback,
generation counter, and double-fault marker.
> - The result keeps input validation, audit ordering, atomic release,
and orphan recovery.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The task-drain service and its routes manage drain state, audit rows,
and execution locks.
**Subsystem affected**
server/ — REST API and orchestration services.
**Current behavior**
The service clamps a validated TTL value. The routes mutate drain state
before audit writes and then restore state after a failed write. Claim
release also tracks a second durable-write failure with an in-memory
marker.
**Proposed behavior**
The validator remains the single TTL policy. The routes write audit rows
before they mutate drain state. Claim release logs a failed write and
lets the orphan reaper release the issue lock.
**Reason and benefit**
The removed paths cannot handle a valid API request that reaches them.
The rollback can lose the original start time. The marker can keep a
drain non-quiescent until process restart. The simpler flow keeps state
consistent and uses the existing recovery path.
**Breaking changes**
None to the public API. A failed claim release keeps the issue lock
until the next orphan-reaper cycle.
## What Changed
- Remove the service-layer TTL clamp because the shared validator
rejects values above the limit.
- Write task-drain audit rows before drain mutation and remove the
rollback helpers.
- Remove the rollback generation counter and its unused state.
- Remove double-fault stuck-claim tracking and keep the atomic release
path.
- State that the quiescent flag describes work in this process.
- Keep the orphan reaper as the recovery path after a failed claim
release.
## Verification
- Run `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server test
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-task-drain-admission-release.test.ts`.
- Run `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server test
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-task-drain.test.ts`.
- Run `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server test
server/src/__tests__/instance-settings-routes.test.ts`.
- Run `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server test
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-scheduling-suppression.test.ts`.
- Run `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server test
server/src/__tests__/execution-lock-orphan-cleanup.test.ts`.
- The five affected test files pass with 70 tests.
- Confirm the full pull request checks pass before merge.
## Risks
The issue lock remains held until the orphan reaper runs after a failed
claim release. This uses the existing recovery path for interrupted
runs. The change does not alter the public API or database schema.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, 400K context window, tool use and code execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` /
`Closes: #` / `Refs: #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the
relevant issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The CLI can save a configuration and start the local server in one
command.
> - The onboarding path set a browser-open environment variable without
an explicit user request.
> - Headless test servers use the same onboarding path.
> - Each server restart could therefore open a system browser.
> - This pull request removes the implicit browser-open request and
fixes test servers to disable it explicitly.
> - The benefit is predictable foreground and test startup without
unsolicited browser windows.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
This is stack 11 of 11. It depends on stack 10.
**What happened?**
`paperclipai onboard --yes --run` set `PAPERCLIP_OPEN_ON_LISTEN=true`.
Headless server users, including browser test runners, opened the system
browser on each server restart.
**Expected behavior**
Server startup must not open a browser unless the caller explicitly sets
`PAPERCLIP_OPEN_ON_LISTEN=true`.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Run `paperclipai onboard --yes --run` from a clean source checkout.
2. Wait for the server to listen.
3. Observe that the default system browser opens.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Reproduced on `dbf052577` plus the dependent stack.
**Deployment mode**
Local dev from source.
## What Changed
- Stop onboarding from setting `PAPERCLIP_OPEN_ON_LISTEN=true` for
foreground startup.
- Set `PAPERCLIP_OPEN_ON_LISTEN=false` in E2E and issue-detail
performance test servers as defense in depth.
- Preserve the existing explicit environment opt-in in the server.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/onboard.test.ts` — 10 tests
passed.
- `pnpm --filter paperclipai typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed on the stacked head.
- `pnpm build` — passed on the stacked head.
- Playwright was not run locally by request.
## Risks
- Low risk. The only behavior change removes an unsolicited side effect.
- A caller that wants browser startup can still set
`PAPERCLIP_OPEN_ON_LISTEN=true` explicitly.
- No database or migration change exists in this layer.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The exact deployment suffix and context window
are not exposed. The model used reasoning, repository tools, code
execution, Git, and GitHub API access.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Apps give those agents governed access to external tools.
> - Provider catalogs must match each provider's current protocol and
credential contract.
> - Postman method labels and API-key placement were outdated.
> - Shopify now offers a UCP commerce endpoint that needs a managed
agent-profile argument.
> - This pull request updates both providers and documents the complete
connection-authoring workflow.
> - The benefit is accurate setup, safer runtime defaults, and a
repeatable provider review process.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #11965
This is stack 10 of 11. It depends on stack 9 and preserves the final
catalog work recovered from #11965.
Related: #5904 covers Shopify skill routing. This pull request covers
the Apps connection contract instead.
## What Changed
- Update Postman hosted MCP methods, capability choices, default
selection, and bearer-token placement.
- Add Shopify UCP commerce and Storefront compatibility methods with
public-store prerequisites.
- Inject the reviewed Shopify UCP agent profile at runtime and remove
that managed field from user input schemas.
- Classify Shopify checkout completion and cancellation as destructive
actions.
- Expand the connection authoring runbook from provider research through
verification and pull request handoff.
- Add focused shared, server, and UI coverage.
- Make the approved-execution waiter phase-aware so slow preparation
cannot consume the provider execution timeout and grace period.
- Settle legacy pre-execute-on-approve requests and invocations as
failed, clear their stale idempotency key, and allow a fresh governed
approval instead of leaving work stuck in `executing`.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/app-definitions.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts
ui/src/pages/apps/AppsConnect.test.tsx -t
"Postman|Shopify|normalizeConnectionMethodConfig|classifyRisk"` (16
passed)
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/services/approved-execution-wait.test.ts` (4 passed)
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/tool-gateway.test.ts -t
"enforces policy, approvals, retries, rate limits, and company
boundaries for connected remote MCP calls"` (1 passed)
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/tool-gateway-service.test.ts` (21 passed; includes
legacy approval settlement and fresh-approval recovery)
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm check:token-gates`
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
## Risks
- Shopify UCP calls now include a Paperclip-managed agent profile that
overrides caller input at the same path.
- Postman EU credentials now use the hosted MCP server's bearer-token
contract instead of the general REST API header.
- The catalog generator and checked-in definitions change together to
prevent regeneration drift.
- Approved execution preparation has an explicit two-minute bound;
provider execution retains its own 65-second timeout and persistence
grace starting from durable provider start.
- Legacy approvals created before execute-on-approve are intentionally
terminalized and must be requested again under the current signed
contract.
> I checked `ROADMAP.md`. This provider update does not duplicate
planned core work. The related open Shopify PR addresses skill routing,
not Apps connections.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime exact model ID and context window were
not exposed. The model used reasoning, tool use, and code execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The backend now turns agent requests into durable connection
intents.
> - Operators need a clear path to inspect, configure, and finish those
requests.
> - The experience must preserve identity, agent access, and interrupted
setup state.
> - This pull request adds the connection intent setup experience across
the app UI.
> - The benefit is one guided flow from agent request to governed
connection.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #11965
This is stack 9 of 11. It depends on stack 8 and replaces another
reviewable part of #11965.
## What Changed
- Add connection intent cards and setup flow integration.
- Add browse, connection, app detail, and sidebar experience updates.
- Preserve exact draft identity and access choices across resume and
OAuth recovery.
- Add focused UI, architecture, policy, and end-to-end coverage.
- Keep transient retained-connection lookup failures retryable instead
of misclassifying them as missing targets.
- Align the dark-mode E2E contract with the intentionally hidden
Gateways and Profiles sidebar tabs.
## Verification
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- Focused UI result: 372 tests passed across 20 files.
- AppsConnect regression suite: 80/80 passed, including failed
connection and application lookups during retained reconnect.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run
src/components/AppsSidebar.test.tsx` (1 passed)
- `pnpm check:token-gates`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations`
- `pnpm build`
## Risks
- An interrupted OAuth flow can leave a durable draft that needs resume.
- The UI resumes the exact draft and keeps its identity and agent access
settings.
- Retained reconnect retries refetch connections and applications
together to avoid mixing partial snapshots.
- Gateways and Profiles remain route-accessible but intentionally absent
from the sidebar until their existing ship gate is lifted.
- The change does not add a database migration.
> I checked `ROADMAP.md`. This stack continues the existing app
connection work from #11965 and does not duplicate another planned item.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime model ID and context window were not
exposed. The model used reasoning, tool use, and code execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have linked the public source pull request with `Refs #`
- [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues
or links
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Connection intents need secure provider implementations to complete
setup.
> - Some providers use managed OAuth or external credential brokers.
> - Those tokens must stay out of durable Paperclip state and fail
closed when refresh fails.
> - This pull request adds managed connector backends and the required
storage contract.
> - The benefit is safer provider setup with governed credential
lifecycles.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #11965
This is stack 8 of 11. It depends on stack 7 and replaces another
reviewable part of #11965.
## What Changed
- Add managed Google Workspace and external connector backends.
- Add Vercel Connect support without storing provider bearer tokens.
- Add replay-safe migration 0232 and its generated snapshot.
- Fail closed and clear stale token bindings when organization OAuth
refresh needs reauthorization.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts`
- Result: 194 tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations`
- `pnpm build`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server
server/src/services/remote-url-credentials.test.ts` (5 passed, including
URL userinfo vault extraction)
## Risks
- Broker metadata errors can block provider setup.
- OAuth refresh failure disables the shared organization connection
until reauthorization.
- Migration 0232 is generated, ordered after 0231, and safe to replay.
> I checked `ROADMAP.md`. This stack continues the existing app
connection work from #11965 and does not duplicate another planned item.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime model ID and context window were not
exposed. The model used reasoning, tool use, and code execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have linked the public source pull request with `Refs #`
- [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues
or links
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Agents need a governed way to request app connections during issue
work.
> - The catalog now describes the available providers and setup methods.
> - A request must become a durable, company-scoped intent before an
operator acts on it.
> - This pull request adds that intent runtime across server, agent,
CLI, and shared contracts.
> - The benefit is a safe bridge from agent need to operator-approved
setup.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #11965
This is stack 7 of 11. It depends on stack 6 and replaces another
reviewable part of #11965.
## What Changed
- Add connection intent types, validation, service logic, and routes.
- Add agent runtime tools and CLI support for connection requests.
- Add issue-thread interaction support for connection intents.
- Add runtime, route, adapter, and contract tests.
- Hold the final resolved-continuation row lock through asynchronous
adapter preparation until an actual process spawn, so parking or
reassignment cannot cross that boundary.
- Report Hermes Gateway's first remote run request through the shared
dispatch hook so the resolved-intent lock is released at the true
dispatch boundary.
- Revalidate the addressed user's live non-viewer membership and
connection-management authority for every intent mutation, including
OAuth completion.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts`
- Result: 176 tests passed.
- `pnpm build`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/heartbeat-stale-queue-invalidation.test.ts` (32 passed;
includes non-process dispatch lock-release coverage)
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server
server/src/__tests__/connection-intents-service.test.ts -t
"addressed-user mutation"` (1 passed)
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server
server/src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts -t "binds OAuth
callback completion to the initiating board session"` (1 passed)
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/hermes-paperclip-adapter test --
src/gateway/server/execute.test.ts` (23 passed; includes dispatch-hook
ordering and exactly-once coverage)
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/hermes-paperclip-adapter typecheck`
## Risks
- A malformed intent could create an unusable operator request.
- Validators and company checks reject invalid or cross-company
requests.
- The final continuation gate holds the issue row lock through adapter
preparation until process or remote dispatch; later operator changes use
the normal active-run interruption path.
- The change does not add a database migration.
> I checked `ROADMAP.md`. This stack continues the existing app
connection work from #11965 and does not duplicate another planned item.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime model ID and context window were not
exposed. The model used reasoning, tool use, and code execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have linked the public source pull request with `Refs #`
- [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues
or links
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - A useful app store needs accurate and selectable provider
definitions.
> - Local brand assets now cover the expanded provider set.
> - Provider methods differ in transport, authentication, ownership, and
required scope.
> - This pull request expands the catalog and encodes those provider
contracts.
> - The benefit is a larger self-serve store with explicit setup
choices.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #11965
This is stack 6 of 11. It depends on stack 5 and replaces another
reviewable part of #11965.
## What Changed
- Add and update provider definitions for the self-serve catalog.
- Add Google Workspace connection methods and capability profiles.
- Add catalog generation, ingestion, URL matching, and contract tests.
- Update legacy key tests to use a provider that still uses header
credentials.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts`
- Result: 164 tests passed.
- `pnpm build`
## Risks
- An incorrect provider definition can offer the wrong setup method.
- Contract tests verify transport, authentication, and provider URL
behavior.
- The change does not add a database migration.
> I checked `ROADMAP.md`. This stack continues the existing app
connection work from #11965 and does not duplicate another planned item.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime model ID and context window were not
exposed. The model used reasoning, tool use, and code execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Refs #` or (b)
described the issue in this pull request
- [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues
or links
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The app store needs stable provider marks that do not depend on
remote image hosts.
> - The connector layer adds many recognizable services.
> - Local assets must work in light and dark themes and follow the
design token gate.
> - This pull request adds the provider asset set and its rendering
support.
> - The benefit is fast and consistent app identification across the UI.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #11965
This is stack 5 of 11. It depends on stack 4 and replaces another
reviewable part of #11965.
## What Changed
- Add local provider logos for the connection catalog.
- Add light and dark asset selection where providers need it.
- Add deterministic fallback behavior and UI tests.
- Document the fixed brand-color allowlist in the token gate.
## Verification
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm check:token-gates`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run
src/pages/apps/AppLogo.test.tsx`
- `pnpm build`
## Risks
- A missing asset path can show the deterministic letter fallback.
- Brand SVG colors use the documented asset allowlist because provider
marks cannot use product theme tokens.
- The change does not add a database migration.
> I checked `ROADMAP.md`. This stack continues the existing app
connection work from #11965 and does not duplicate another planned item.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime model ID and context window were not
exposed. The model used reasoning, tool use, and code execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Refs #` or (b)
described the issue in this pull request
- [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues
or links
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - App connections need both direct providers and managed provider
hubs.
> - The grant layer now defines safe credential ownership.
> - Composio needs parent and child connection lifecycle rules, and
Gmail needs governed setup.
> - This pull request adds both connector families on the grant
foundation.
> - The benefit is broader app access without weakening credential
isolation.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #11965
This is stack 4 of 11. It depends on stack 3 and replaces another
reviewable part of #11965.
## What Changed
- Add Composio parent and child connection support.
- Add Gmail connection setup and governance.
- Preserve credential paths and remove duplicate binding declarations.
- Cascade Composio pause and restore actions to child connections.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts`
- Result: 164 tests passed.
- `pnpm build`
## Risks
- Parent lifecycle changes can affect every Composio child.
- The service restores only children whose provider accounts remain
active.
- Credential binding paths are normalized before secret resolution.
> I checked `ROADMAP.md`. This stack continues the existing app
connection work from #11965 and does not duplicate another planned item.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime model ID and context window were not
exposed. The model used reasoning, tool use, and code execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - External tools need explicit identity and access boundaries.
> - Shared connection credentials cannot represent every user-scoped use
case.
> - Grants must stay company-scoped and support safe delegation.
> - This pull request adds connection grants, identity rules, and their
database contract.
> - The benefit is durable control over which identity an agent may use.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #11965
This is stack 3 of 11. It depends on stack 2 and replaces another
reviewable part of #11965.
## What Changed
- Add company and user connection grants.
- Add delegated identity and membership rules.
- Synchronize database, shared, server, and UI contracts.
- Register the grant-member replacement route in the OpenAPI surface in
the same layer that mounts it.
- Add migration 0231 with replay-safe guards and coverage.
## Verification
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts` (5 passed)
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations`
- `pnpm build`
## Risks
- Incorrect grant selection could expose the wrong credential scope.
- The service enforces company and subject boundaries before credential
use.
- Migration 0231 is generated, ordered after 0230, and safe to replay.
> I checked `ROADMAP.md`. This stack continues the existing app
connection work from #11965 and does not duplicate another planned item.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime model ID and context window were not
exposed. The model used reasoning, tool use, and code execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either linked a public issue or pull request with `Refs #`
- [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues
or links
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - App connections must work in both the operator UI and agent tool
gateway.
> - The first stack layer adds secure remote connections.
> - Operators still need clear setup, test, and recovery states.
> - This pull request adds the gateway behavior and the workspace
connection experience.
> - The benefit is a connection flow that is easier to understand and
recover.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #11965
This is stack 2 of 11. It depends on stack 1 and replaces another
reviewable part of #11965.
## What Changed
- Improve remote tool gateway connection behavior.
- Add clearer app setup, test, and recovery states.
- Add focused server and UI tests for the new paths.
- Keep the diff isolated from later identity and catalog work.
- Stabilize DNS-pinned remote HTTP protocol fixtures and the
managed-runtime public-origin fixture for this independently tested
layer.
## Verification
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts` (150 passed)
- `pnpm test:run`
- `pnpm check:token-gates`
- `pnpm build`
## Risks
- Gateway errors now surface through new user-facing states.
- A stale connection can require a new setup attempt.
- The change does not add a database migration.
- The injected HTTP transport and public URL are test-only fixtures;
production DNS pinning and runtime behavior are unchanged.
> I checked `ROADMAP.md`. This stack continues the existing app
connection work from #11965 and does not duplicate another planned item.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime model ID and context window were not
exposed. The model used reasoning, tool use, and code execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Apps give those agents governed access to external tools.
> - Remote MCP setup needs secure endpoint validation and durable
credentials.
> - PostHog needs both browser sign-in and personal API key setup paths.
> - This pull request adds the shared remote MCP foundation and the
PostHog definition.
> - The benefit is a secure and reusable base for later app connection
work.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #11965
This is stack 1 of 11. It replaces the first reviewable part of #11965.
## What Changed
- Add guarded remote MCP setup and credential handling.
- Add PostHog OAuth and API key connection methods.
- Add focused server, shared contract, and UI coverage.
- Keep the migration replay-safe and idempotent.
- Give the late-close security regression the same 10-second CI headroom
as the adjacent real-timer handshake test.
- Synchronize fake-timer handshake tests at the exact ensure-session
boundary so real filesystem setup cannot race the fake deadline.
- Drive PTY overflow coverage only after listener registration so
scheduling cannot reorder the test fixture.
## Verification
- pnpm exec vitest run
packages/adapter-utils/src/acpx-engine/execute.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/plugin-worker-manager.test.ts (220 passed; affected
cases also passed five focused stress repetitions)
- `pnpm exec vitest run
packages/adapter-utils/src/acpx-engine/execute.test.ts -t "never leaks a
sandbox-provided value from a late close rejection into logs or the
result"` (1 passed)
- `pnpm exec vitest run
packages/adapter-utils/src/acpx-engine/execute.test.ts -t "never
promotes a late ensureSession resolution|closes a late-resolving real
handle exactly once"` (2 passed)
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations`
- `pnpm build`
## Risks
- Remote endpoint validation can reject configurations that previously
passed without checks.
- OAuth configuration errors can block setup until the operator corrects
the provider settings.
- The migration uses guarded statements so repeated execution is safe.
- The test-only synchronization changes do not affect runtime behavior;
they remove filesystem/fake-clock and listener-registration races
observed under parallel CI load.
> I checked `ROADMAP.md`. This stack continues the existing app
connection work from #11965 and does not duplicate another planned item.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime model ID and context window were not
exposed. The model used reasoning, tool use, and code execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The server admits agent work through heartbeat scheduling and
execution paths
> - Operators need to stop new work before maintenance or a graceful
shutdown
> - A process restart alone does not provide a reusable admission
control primitive
> - This pull request adds an instance API that holds new task admission
and reports process quiescence
> - The benefit is a small, auditable control that lets operators wait
for active work without a restart
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Problem or motivation**
Operators cannot hold new task admission without restarting the
Paperclip process. A restart can interrupt maintenance flows and does
not provide a status signal for active work.
**Proposed solution**
Add `GET /instance/task-drain`, `POST /instance/task-drain`, and `DELETE
/instance/task-drain`. The server keeps the drain state in process
memory, applies it to every scheduling suppression path, supports an
optional TTL up to 24 hours, and reports active wake and run counts.
**Alternatives considered**
A timer would clear the drain after its TTL, but it could keep the
Node.js event loop open during shutdown. A database row would add
storage and query work for process-local state. The implementation uses
lazy expiry and process memory instead.
**Roadmap alignment**
The change supports the roadmap goal for enforced outcomes and safe
recovery actions. It does not duplicate a listed roadmap item.
**Additional context**
This is a server and shared-package change. It adds no user interface
and no database migration.
## What Changed
- Add process-local task-drain state with lazy TTL expiry.
- Add task-drain admission suppression to the shared heartbeat resolver.
- Add instance routes to read, start, and stop a task drain.
- Add validation for positive TTL values and the shared 24-hour maximum.
- Add activity records for drain mutations and tests for status, access
control, validation, and suppression.
## Verification
- Run `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-task-drain.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/instance-settings-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-scheduling-suppression.test.ts`.
- Run `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared exec tsc --noEmit`.
- Run `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsc --noEmit` and compare
its known pre-existing errors with the base commit.
- Confirm that pull request CI reaches a terminal green state.
## Risks
The drain state exists only in process memory, so a restart clears it.
This behavior matches the process-local design. A drain without a TTL
remains active until an operator calls the delete route. The status
route reads in-memory activity sets and does not query stale database
rows.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, extended reasoning with tool use and code
execution. The exact runtime context window is not exposed by the
execution environment.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip uses GitHub Actions to verify pull requests before merge.
> - The pull request workflow calls a trusted reusable workflow at an
immutable commit SHA.
> - Pull request #12507 added stack-aware CI scope to that reusable
workflow.
> - The caller still points to the prior workflow commit, so the new
behavior is not active.
> - This pull request advances the caller to the merged commit from pull
request #12507.
> - The benefit is that native stack middle layers stop starting
redundant full CI matrices.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #12507
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The pull request workflow still calls the trusted CI definition that
predates stack-aware scope selection.
**Subsystem affected**
GitHub Actions pull request verification.
**Current behavior**
Every pull request layer in a native stack starts the complete test,
build, canary, and E2E matrix.
**Proposed behavior**
Call the trusted workflow from merged master commit
`39b8ee2960541d14b380f95365deecba6723d9bd`. That workflow runs full CI
for ordinary, top, and lowest-unmerged pull requests. It keeps policy
and required aggregate checks on middle layers.
**Reason and benefit**
This completes the two-step immutable workflow rollout from pull request
#12507. Large stacks will use fewer runners and will spend less time
waiting for duplicate jobs.
**Breaking changes**
Middle native stack layers no longer run the complete CI matrix.
Required aggregate checks remain present and fail closed if the stack
scope is missing or invalid.
## What Changed
- Pin `.github/workflows/pr.yml` to merged master commit
`39b8ee2960541d14b380f95365deecba6723d9bd`.
- Activate the stack-aware trusted workflow that merged in pull request
#12507.
## Verification
- `node --test scripts/__tests__/e2e-shard.test.mjs` — 11 tests passed.
- `actionlint .github/workflows/pr.yml .github/workflows/pr-trusted.yml`
— passed.
- `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` — passed.
- Confirm that the caller SHA equals the merge commit for pull request
#12507.
## Risks
- The caller is immutable and points to a commit that exists on
`master`.
- Ordinary pull requests and merge-relevant stack layers still run full
CI.
- A rollback can restore the prior immutable SHA in one line.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex with GPT-5. The exact deployment suffix and context
window are not exposed. The model used reasoning, repository tools, code
execution, Git, and GitHub API access.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip uses GitHub Actions to protect changes before they enter
`master`.
> - GitHub evaluates every pull request in a native stack against the
stack base.
> - The current workflow therefore starts the complete CI matrix for
every layer in a stack.
> - A large stack can queue many copies of the same integrated
verification and delay every pull request.
> - GitHub provides stack position and base metadata so workflows can
select merge-relevant layers.
> - This pull request keeps policy and required check names on every
layer, but runs full CI only for ordinary pull requests, the top layer,
and the lowest unmerged layer.
> - The benefit is much lower CI load without weakening the
required-check contract.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The trusted pull request workflow currently runs every test, build,
canary, and E2E lane for every pull request in a native stack.
**Subsystem affected**
GitHub Actions pull request verification.
**Current behavior**
A stack with 61 pull requests can start 61 complete CI matrices after a
cascading rebase.
**Proposed behavior**
Run the always-on policy job and stable required-check aggregators for
every layer. Run the complete verification matrix only for ordinary pull
requests, the top stack layer, and the lowest unmerged stack layer.
**Reason and benefit**
The top layer verifies the integrated stack. The lowest unmerged layer
verifies the current merge candidate. Middle layers keep
branch-protection checks without consuming the complete runner matrix.
**Breaking changes**
Middle stack layers no longer run the complete CI matrix. Their `ci /
verify` and `ci / e2e` checks still require the policy job to pass and
require every expensive lane to be intentionally skipped.
## What Changed
- Add a fail-safe stack scope decision to the trusted PR runner gate.
- Run typecheck, general tests, build, serialized tests, canary, and E2E
shards only for ordinary, top, and lowest-unmerged pull requests.
- Preserve the required `ci / verify` and `ci / e2e` names on every
layer.
- Make the required aggregators distinguish valid middle-layer skips
from failures or missing scope decisions.
- Add regression coverage for ordinary, top, bottom, middle, and
malformed stack metadata.
## Verification
- `node --test scripts/__tests__/e2e-shard.test.mjs` — 11 tests passed.
- `actionlint .github/workflows/pr-trusted.yml .github/workflows/pr.yml`
— passed.
- `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` — passed.
- The caller remains pinned to the current trusted workflow. A separate
activation change must advance the immutable SHA after this pull request
lands.
## Risks
- Incorrect stack classification could skip important jobs. Missing or
malformed stack metadata defaults to full CI.
- Middle-layer required checks depend on the policy job and verify that
all expensive jobs have the `skipped` result.
- The reusable workflow change does not become active until the
immutable caller SHA advances in a separate change.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex with GPT-5. The exact deployment suffix and context
window are not exposed. The model used reasoning, repository tools, code
execution, Git, and GitHub API access.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` /
`Closes: #` / `Refs: #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the
relevant issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip uses GitHub ownership rules to protect critical repository
files.
> - These rules cover release infrastructure, GitHub configuration,
skills, and dependency files.
> - The current rules do not include `@forgottendev`.
> - The new maintainer needs the same review scope as the existing code
owners.
> - This pull request adds `@forgottendev` to every existing CODEOWNERS
rule.
> - The benefit is consistent review ownership without a change to the
protected path set.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
This change improves the GitHub review ownership for critical repository
files.
**Subsystem affected**
Repository governance and GitHub configuration.
**Current behavior**
The 13 existing CODEOWNERS rules list `@cryppadotta`, `@devinfoley`, and
`@nickyleach`. They do not list `@forgottendev`.
**Proposed behavior**
Every existing CODEOWNERS rule also lists `@forgottendev`.
**Reason and benefit**
This gives `@forgottendev` the same review ownership scope as the
existing maintainers. It keeps ownership consistent across all protected
paths.
**Breaking changes**
None. This change does not remove an owner or change a path pattern.
## What Changed
- Added `@forgottendev` to all 13 existing entries in
`.github/CODEOWNERS`.
- Kept all existing owners and path patterns unchanged.
## Verification
- Ran `git diff --check origin/master..HEAD`.
- Confirmed that all 13 active CODEOWNERS rules contain `@forgottendev`.
- Confirmed that the commit changes only `.github/CODEOWNERS`.
- Confirmed that the GitHub account `forgottendev` exists.
- Did not run the application test suite because this change only
updates GitHub ownership metadata.
## Risks
- Low risk. This is an additive ownership change.
- GitHub can request review from `@forgottendev` for future pull
requests that change a covered path.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex based on GPT-5, with reasoning, shell access, and GitHub
CLI tool use. The hosted context-window size was not exposed.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip uses workspace manifests to declare package dependencies.
> - The lockfile records each workspace link for repeatable installs.
> - PR #12469 added `@paperclipai/shared` to the Grok local adapter
manifest.
> - The `master` lockfile did not include this new workspace link.
> - A frozen install requires the manifest and lockfile to match.
> - This pull request regenerates the lockfile with the repository
workflow.
> - The benefit is a repeatable frozen install from `master`.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #12469
## What Changed
- Added the `@paperclipai/shared` workspace link to the Grok local
adapter importer in `pnpm-lock.yaml`.
## Verification
- Ran `CI=true pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` successfully.
- Ran the full pull request CI suite under Node.js 24. All 23 jobs
passed.
## Risks
- Low risk. This pull request changes only one lockfile importer.
- The package manifest already declares the dependency.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex with GPT-5 (`gpt-5`). The runtime does not expose the
context limit. Agentic reasoning, repository tools, API tools, and code
execution were enabled.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Co-authored-by: lockfile-bot <lockfile-bot@users.noreply.github.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Paperclip uses adapters to connect agents and model providers to its
control plane
> - The sandbox login panel supports displayed-code login for selected
adapters
> - Grok users need the same login path and a private credential home
for later runs
> - This pull request adds Grok support to the shared device-login path
and preserves the existing Codex path
> - The benefit is one secure login flow for both adapters with
company-scoped credential storage
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Agent or provider**
Grok Local needs displayed-code login support in the sandbox login
panel.
**Why this adapter is useful**
This change lets users sign in to Grok from the sandbox login panel. It
also gives later Grok runs access to the stored credential.
**How the agent is invoked**
The Grok local adapter uses its login command through the shared
displayed-code login flow. Later runs receive the managed home through
`GROK_HOME`.
**Additional context**
The change uses adapter-scoped login lifecycle handling. It stores the
credential in a company-scoped directory with mode `0700`, and it stores
the credential file with mode `0600`.
## What Changed
- Rename the shared device-login modules to adapter-neutral names.
- Scope the shared login lifecycle to a closed adapter set.
- Return the device-login URL that the provider prints.
- Add the Grok prompt parser, login command, capability, and login panel
entry.
- Store the Grok credential in a private, company-scoped home directory.
- Pass `GROK_HOME` to later Grok runs.
- Add tests for the Grok adapter, the Daytona sandbox provider, the
server login path, and the user interface.
## Verification
- Run `pnpm vitest run
packages/adapters/grok-local/src/server/adapter-auth-promotion.test.ts`.
- Run the Grok adapter package suite.
- Run the Daytona sandbox provider suite.
- Run the server device-login suites.
- Run the user interface suite.
- Confirm the full CI suite passes.
## Risks
The change extends shared login lifecycle code to another adapter. A
regression could affect Codex login. The credential path uses explicit
`chmod` calls to keep the directory at mode `0700` and the file at mode
`0600`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime used tool calls and code review
support. The runtime did not provide a context-window value.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The server test suites verify agent permissions and route behavior
> - The agent-permissions route suite rebuilt its full module graph for
every test
> - CPU load made that repeated work exceed the test timeout and caused
intermittent failures
> - This pull request loads the route module graph once for the file and
resets each mock before every test
> - The benefit is faster, stable test execution with the same test
coverage and isolation
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
`server/src/__tests__/agent-permissions-routes.test.ts` failed
intermittently in continuous integration. The suite reset modules and
re-imported the route module graph for every test. Under CPU load, one
import took seconds instead of milliseconds and caused an expected
response to become an HTTP 500.
**Expected behavior**
The suite should run all 54 cases without intermittent timeout failures.
Each test should keep isolated mock state.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Run `npx vitest run
server/src/__tests__/agent-permissions-routes.test.ts`.
2. Repeat the file run under high CPU load.
3. Compare the failure rate and run time before and after this change.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`c4d1af4216f174a92823ca3a20e0717c54371dd5`
**Deployment mode**
Built from source.
**Installation method**
Built from source with pnpm.
**Agent adapter(s) involved**
Not adapter-specific. This change affects a server test suite.
**Database mode**
Not database-related.
## What Changed
- Load the route module graph one time for the describe block with the
existing `hoistModuleGraph` helper.
- Make `createApp` synchronous and read the hoisted graph.
- Remove per-test `vi.resetModules()` and the 26 `vi.doUnmock(...)`
calls.
- Keep stable mock objects and reset each route-facing mock before every
test.
- Keep all 44 `it` blocks and 54 parameterized cases.
## Verification
- `npx vitest run server/src/__tests__/agent-permissions-routes.test.ts`
passes and reports 54 tests.
- `npx tsc --noEmit -p server/tsconfig.json` passes with 0 errors.
- Under 32 concurrent CPU-bound loops, the file passed 15 of 15 runs
after this change, with 54 of 54 cases on each run.
- The same test failed 1 of 15 runs before this change.
- Per-run wall-clock time changed from about 29–34 seconds to about 8–10
seconds.
## Risks
- Low risk. The change affects test setup only.
- The hoisted mock objects keep stable identity, and `beforeEach` resets
every route-facing mock.
- The registration step arms no mock implementations, and the test
adapter still unregisters in a `finally` block.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime provided tool use and code execution.
The runtime did not provide a context window value.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip uses trusted GitHub Actions workflows to verify each pull
request.
> - The caller pins the reusable workflow to an immutable merged commit.
> - Native stacked pull requests can inherit a stale lockfile from a
parent layer.
> - Pull request #12461 added safe merge-tree lockfile regeneration to
the trusted workflow.
> - The caller must now select that merged workflow version.
> - This pull request advances the immutable pin to the merge commit
from #12461.
> - The benefit is reliable verification for native stacked pull
requests.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #12461
## What Changed
- Pin the trusted pull request workflow to merged commit
`1da6b37fc56dacf5e7ffbd31da35756a1cba41f8`.
- Activate stale lockfile regeneration for native stacked pull requests.
## Verification
- `actionlint .github/workflows/pr.yml`
- `node --test scripts/__tests__/e2e-shard.test.mjs`
## Risks
- Low risk. This changes only the immutable reusable-workflow pin.
- The target commit is merged into `master` and passed all required
checks.
- The target workflow adds one lockfile-only install to the policy job.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex with model `gpt-5`, reasoning, tool use, and code
execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The server tests cover issue routes and execution workspace state
> - The closed-workspace route suite reloads a mocked module graph
before each test
> - CPU contention can bind one test to the real service and hide a 500
response
> - This pull request loads the mocked graph once and checks exact
success statuses
> - The benefit is a stable suite that detects route failures instead of
accepting them
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
The closed-workspace issue route suite reloaded and unmocked the module
graph before each test. Under CPU contention, a route could bind to the
real execution-workspaces service. The request then returned `500`,
while a weak assertion accepted the result.
**Expected behavior**
The suite must use the configured service mocks for every test. Each
success case must assert its exact expected HTTP status.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Run the closed-workspace route suite many times in parallel.
2. Use CPU contention during the run.
3. Observe intermittent failures or weak assertions that accept `500`
responses.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Commit `0d5686b942f1d1366112cb922f95e5c8622bb9a6`.
**Deployment mode**
Built from source with the server test runner.
**Installation method**
Built from source.
**Agent adapter(s) involved**
Not adapter-specific.
**Database mode**
Not database-related.
**Additional context**
This pull request relates to
[#11472](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/11472). It does
not change product code.
## What Changed
- Load the mocked service graph once per file with `hoistModuleGraph`.
- Remove the per-test module reset and unmock cycle.
- Assert exact success statuses for the three affected responses.
- Add the missing `refreshReopenPendingConsumption` mock.
- Use one named timeout constant for every `vi.waitFor` call.
- Replace `setImmediate` barriers with fake-timer advances.
## Verification
- `npx vitest run --project @paperclipai/server
server/src/__tests__/issue-closed-workspace-routes.test.ts` passes 12 of
12 tests locally.
- A 200-sample sweep with 20 parallel copies passed with zero failures.
- An independent 100-sample sweep with 20 parallel copies passed with
zero failures.
- `npx tsc --noEmit -p server` reports the same 61 pre-existing errors
with and without this change.
- GitHub Actions must run the full server suite for final verification.
## Risks
Low risk. This pull request changes one test file and does not change
product code. The stricter assertions can expose a real route failure
that the old suite hid.
## Model Used
Codex, GPT-5, tool use and code review assistance. The exact context
window and reasoning mode are not available in this handoff.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The adapter layer carries sandbox requests to host processes.
> - The HTTP/2 bridge used one process-wide byte ledger for all routes.
> - One busy route could exhaust that shared budget and move another
route to file transport.
> - This pull request gives each host retention site a fixed byte bound
and limits concurrent HTTP/2 streams.
> - The benefit is local protection: one route cannot consume the byte
budget of another route.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
The HTTP/2 bridge used one aggregate byte ledger for retained bytes
across all routes. A busy route could exhaust the shared budget and
force an unrelated route to use file transport.
**Expected behavior**
Each route should protect its own retained bytes. A reset on one HTTP/2
stream should cancel only that stream's host forward.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Start the HTTP/2 bridge with multiple sandbox routes.
2. Send enough retained data through one route to reach the aggregate
byte limit.
3. Send a request through a sibling route.
4. Observe that the sibling route can fall back to file transport
because the first route used the shared ledger.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`47639e227e78e3c5e0dd1a3c0e2d792fe86895a3`
**Deployment mode**
Built from source with the adapter-utils and server test suites.
## What Changed
- Bound each host retention site with a fixed local byte limit.
- Limited concurrent live HTTP/2 streams with one built-in stream limit.
- Bound each host forward and response-body read to its own HTTP/2
stream lifetime.
- Removed the process-wide byte ledger, its environment override, its
metrics, and its file-transport fallbacks.
- Added tests for the stream limit, host body budget, and sibling-stream
cancellation.
## Verification
- Run `pnpm vitest run --project adapter-utils`.
- Confirm that 996 adapter-utils tests pass.
- Confirm that `test_live_forward_work_never_passes_the_stream_limit`
passes.
- Confirm that `test_the_host_body_budget_matches_the_stream_limit`
passes.
- Confirm that the sibling-stream cancellation test passes.
- Run `pnpm tsc --noEmit`.
- Confirm that all pull request checks pass.
## Risks
The bridge no longer uses a process-wide byte ledger. A local bound or
stream limit that is too low can reject or delay valid work. The tests
cover the new limits and stream cancellation behavior.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-5 Codex. Runtime model ID: GPT-5. The model used code
execution and repository tools. The runtime does not expose the context
window size.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` /
`Closes: #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the
relevant issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The CLI test suite uses embedded Postgres for worktree checks.
> - Several tests start a cluster and run migrations on each test.
> - Runner contention can make this cost class exceed small hand-written
time budgets.
> - A timed-out test can also leave the cluster alive while cleanup
removes its data directory.
> - This pull request gives the cost class one measured timeout and
registers cleanup for the timeout path.
> - The benefit is stable tests and fewer orphaned embedded Postgres
processes.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue tracks this defect. Related PRs #10987 and #10961
address wider embedded-Postgres test setup issues. This pull request
addresses the CLI timeout and cleanup path described below.
**What happened?**
Five CLI tests used different hand-written time budgets while they
started embedded Postgres and ran migrations. Runner contention made one
test exceed its budget. A timeout also skipped the `finally` cleanup
path and left a Postgres process alive.
**Expected behavior**
Each embedded-Postgres test gets a budget that covers measured runner
contention. Cleanup stops the cluster before the test removes its data
directory, including after a timeout.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Run `npx vitest run cli/src/__tests__/worktree.test.ts` on a
contended runner.
2. Observe the embedded-Postgres tests take longer than their small
hand-written budgets.
3. Inspect the process list after a timeout and observe an orphaned
Postgres process.
**Paperclip version or commit**
The defect reproduces on `master` before this pull request.
**Deployment mode**
Built from source with Vitest.
**Installation method**
Built from source with pnpm.
## What Changed
- Export `EMBEDDED_POSTGRES_TEST_TIMEOUT_MS` from the embedded-Postgres
test helper.
- Apply the shared timeout to every test defined by
`itEmbeddedPostgres`.
- Replace the five hand-written timeout values in `worktree.test.ts`.
- Register temporary-directory removal and cluster stop with
`onTestFinished` in the correct order.
- Restore the working directory during timeout cleanup.
## Verification
- `npx vitest run cli/src/__tests__/worktree.test.ts` passes 63 tests.
- `npx vitest run cli/src` passes 424 tests across 59 files.
- `tsc --noEmit` in `cli/` adds no new error in the touched files.
- CI must pass on the pull request head.
- Greptile must report 5/5 with no unresolved blocking thread.
## Risks
- Low risk. The change affects test helpers and test cleanup only.
- The shared budget can lengthen a failing test before Vitest reports
the failure.
- The cleanup order depends on Vitest callback order, which the tests
now use explicitly.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The model used tool calls and code review support.
The context window size and internal reasoning mode were not exposed in
this run.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` /
`Closes: #` / `Refs: #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the
relevant issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip uses trusted GitHub Actions workflows to verify every pull
request
> - Native stacked pull requests use another pull request branch as
their base
> - A parent layer can change a package manifest without committing
`pnpm-lock.yaml`
> - A child layer can inherit that manifest change without changing a
manifest itself
> - The current policy skips lockfile regeneration for that child and
downstream frozen installs fail
> - This pull request validates the complete merge tree and shares a
regenerated lockfile only when needed
> - The benefit is reliable stacked pull request verification without
weakening the trusted workflow boundary
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
A stacked child pull request inherited a package manifest change from
its parent. The child did not change a manifest itself. The policy job
skipped lockfile regeneration. Downstream jobs tried to restore an
artifact that did not exist and then failed during frozen dependency
installation.
**Expected behavior**
The policy job must validate the complete pull request merge tree. It
must upload a regenerated lockfile when the checked-in lockfile is
stale, including on a stacked child layer.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Create a parent pull request that changes `package.json` without
committing `pnpm-lock.yaml`.
2. Create a child pull request on that branch without another manifest
change.
3. Run the trusted pull request workflow for the child.
4. Observe that frozen dependency installation fails because no
`pr-lockfile` artifact exists.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`f173ee09fa5c2ced7806bba47b54c3df853ab4df`
**Deployment mode**
GitHub Actions trusted pull request workflow.
**Agent adapter(s) involved**
Not adapter-specific. This is a core CI workflow bug.
## What Changed
- Regenerate the lockfile from every checked-out merge tree.
- Compare the generated lockfile with the checked-in copy before upload.
- Download the artifact only when the policy job reports that it
uploaded one.
- Fail closed when a reported artifact is missing.
- Add a workflow contract test for stacked lockfile handling.
- Keep the caller pinned to the last merged trusted SHA; after this
implementation merges, a separate activation PR will advance the
immutable pin to its merge commit.
## Verification
- `actionlint .github/workflows/pr-trusted.yml`
- `node --test scripts/__tests__/e2e-shard.test.mjs`
## Risks
- The policy job runs one lockfile-only install for every pull request.
This can add a small amount of CI time.
- A missing artifact now fails immediately when the policy job reports
an upload. This is intentional because it exposes workflow corruption.
- No runtime or product behavior changes.
- The implementation/activation split is intentional: unmerged
PR-authored workflow code must never execute on trusted runners.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex with model `gpt-5`, reasoning, tool use, and code
execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Adapter utilities start and control agent sessions.
> - The ACP startup handshake can stay pending when the sandbox
transport closes.
> - A pending handshake keeps the run active and prevents a clear
operator result.
> - This pull request bounds the handshake and fences its abandoned
promise.
> - The result gives each startup failure a terminal state and a safe
host-authored diagnostic.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No matching public issue or pull request appeared in the GitHub search
for this failure. The issue details follow.
**What happened?**
The adapter engine awaited `runtime.ensureSession()` without a startup
bound. A lost sandbox transport could leave the await pending.
**Expected behavior**
The engine must end the run when the startup deadline expires or the
duplex transport closes. A late session result must not reopen the
settled run.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Start an ACP-backed agent run.
2. Keep the ACP initialization call pending.
3. Let the startup deadline expire or close the duplex transport.
4. Confirm that the run reaches a terminal state and that a late session
result does not reopen it.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`66e1c0df8b23cb8354b36dd446d9548dc4389191` merge base.
**Deployment mode**
Local dev (`pnpm dev`).
**Installation method**
Built from source (`pnpm dev`).
**Agent adapter(s) involved**
Custom / external plugin adapter.
**Database mode**
Not database-related.
**Relevant logs or output**
The new tests use fixed host-authored diagnostics for handshake guard
failures and late close failures.
**Additional context**
The change updates the execution semantics document and adds regression
coverage. The three existing failures in `execute.test.ts` also occur at
the merge base.
## What Changed
- Bound `runtime.ensureSession()` with a startup deadline and a duplex
transport loss check.
- Added terminal error codes for handshake timeout and transport loss.
- Fenced late session resolution and rejection so the settled run has
one owner.
- Suppressed sandbox-controlled diagnostic values on the guard-failure
and late-close paths.
- Added regression tests for timeout, transport loss, late resolution,
and late close rejection.
- Documented the startup live-path contract.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-utils exec tsc --noEmit` exits 0.
- The engine test suite runs from the repository root.
- The new regression cases pass.
- The three known failures remain the only failures and also fail at the
merge base. The board approved this pre-existing test exception.
- Cold start and session resume cases pass.
- All required GitHub checks pass.
- Greptile reports 5/5 with no open P2 findings, recommendations, or
follow-ups.
## Risks
The startup guard changes only the ACP startup path. A slow but valid
startup can now end at the configured deadline. The fence closes a late
handle once and records fixed host-authored diagnostics.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, current model version, tool use and code execution,
with the full task context.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` /
`Closes: #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the
relevant issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally. Three pre-existing failures remain and
have an approved exception.
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip uses pull request checks to protect changes.
> - The trusted workflow selects GitHub or AWS runners.
> - Pull request #12462 removed an unreliable stale API equality.
> - The public caller must pin an immutable trusted workflow commit.
> - This pull request changes only that pin.
> - The benefit is correct AWS routing for trusted stacked pull
requests.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #12339
Refs #12462
## What Changed
- Pin the thin pull request caller to
f9c32513b2.
## Verification
- actionlint .github/workflows/pr-trusted.yml .github/workflows/pr.yml
- github-runners/tests/test-workflow.sh .github/workflows/pr-trusted.yml
.github/workflows/pr.yml
- The runner group authorizes this SHA and all in-flight prior SHAs.
## Risks
- Low risk. This changes one immutable workflow reference.
- Older workflow SHAs remain authorized while queued and active jobs
finish.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5.6, with reasoning and terminal tool use.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used with version and capability
details
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have linked existing public pull requests
- [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues
or links
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
ticket ID
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation
- [x] I have considered and documented risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open findings
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip uses pull request checks to protect changes.
> - The trusted CI gate selects GitHub or AWS runners.
> - GitHub can return an old pull request base SHA after the live base
advances.
> - The signed event, live Git ref, ancestry, and merge parents provide
the required proof.
> - The stale API field rejects a safe run even when those proofs pass.
> - This pull request removes that unreliable equality.
> - The benefit is correct AWS routing for trusted stacked pull
requests.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #12339
Refs #12459
## What Changed
- Stop treating pull request base.sha as a current-state signal.
- Keep the signed event base SHA and live ref descendant check.
- Keep the live base or synthetic base merge-parent proof.
- Keep all numeric identity, repository, head SHA, and triggering actor
checks.
## Verification
- actionlint .github/workflows/pr-trusted.yml .github/workflows/pr.yml
- github-runners/tests/test-workflow.sh .github/workflows/pr-trusted.yml
.github/workflows/pr.yml
- The corrected gate selected the Fleet label with the exact live event
data from PR #12339 run 33201610330.
## Risks
- The pull request API base SHA can be stale and is no longer compared.
- Replaced ancestry, a changed head, a changed merge parent, and a
changed merge tree still fail closed.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5.6, with reasoning and terminal tool use.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used with version and capability
details
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have linked existing public pull requests
- [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues
or links
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
ticket ID
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation in the operations repository
- [x] I have considered and documented risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open findings
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip uses pull request checks to protect changes.
> - The trusted CI workflow selects GitHub or AWS runners.
> - Pull request #12459 fixed validation when a stacked base advances.
> - The public caller must use an immutable trusted workflow SHA.
> - This pull request changes only that SHA.
> - The benefit is automatic AWS routing for the affected trusted stack
runs.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #12339
Refs #12459
## What Changed
- Pin the thin pull request caller to
f929355fb9.
## Verification
- actionlint .github/workflows/pr-trusted.yml .github/workflows/pr.yml
- github-runners/tests/test-workflow.sh .github/workflows/pr-trusted.yml
.github/workflows/pr.yml
- The runner group already authorizes the old and new exact workflow
SHAs.
## Risks
- Low risk. This changes one immutable workflow reference.
- The old workflow SHA remains authorized while current runs finish.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5.6, with reasoning and terminal tool use.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used with version and capability
details
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have linked existing public pull requests
- [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues
or links
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
ticket ID
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation
- [x] I have considered and documented risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open findings
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip uses pull request checks to protect changes.
> - The trusted CI workflow selects GitHub or AWS runners.
> - Stacked pull requests can advance their base branch while a gate
waits.
> - The gate already proves that the live base descends from the event
base.
> - An earlier exact base check rejects that safe state before the
ancestry check runs.
> - This pull request removes the conflicting check and verifies live
API consistency.
> - The benefit is automatic AWS routing for trusted stacked pull
requests without weaker identity checks.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #12339
Refs #12457
## What Changed
- Allow the live pull request base SHA to advance from the signed event
base snapshot.
- Require the pull request API base SHA to match the live Git ref during
validation.
- Keep the numeric author, sender, and triggering actor checks.
- Keep descendant ancestry and synthetic merge validation.
## Verification
- actionlint .github/workflows/pr-trusted.yml .github/workflows/pr.yml
- github-runners/tests/test-workflow.sh .github/workflows/pr-trusted.yml
.github/workflows/pr.yml
- The routing suite covers a live stacked base advance and a base change
during validation.
## Risks
- A trusted stacked run can use a newer descendant base than its signed
event snapshot.
- Replaced ancestry still fails closed.
- A live base change during gate validation still fails closed.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5.6, with reasoning and terminal tool use.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either linked existing issues or described the issue in
this pull request
- [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues
or links
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
ticket ID
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation in the operations repository
- [x] I have considered and documented risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open findings
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Pull request checks protect the application and its contributors.
> - The trusted CI gate must validate both direct and stacked GitHub
merge shapes.
> - Pull request #12457 added that validation at an immutable master
SHA.
> - The active caller still pins the prior workflow version.
> - This pull request pins the caller to the newly authorized SHA.
> - The benefit is safe automatic AWS routing for trusted stacked pull
requests.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #12457
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The active caller uses a gate that fails closed on GitHub synthetic
stacked merge parents.
**Subsystem affected**
GitHub Actions pull request routing.
**Current behavior**
Trusted stacked pull requests run on GitHub-hosted runners after the
merge-parent check rejects the synthetic base merge.
**Proposed behavior**
The caller uses the authorized workflow SHA
7b199fcafa.
**Reason and benefit**
The change lets approved stack jobs use the 100-runner AWS Fleet while
all numeric identity and live-state checks remain active.
**Breaking changes**
None for untrusted contributors. Their jobs continue on GitHub-hosted
runners.
**Additional context**
The runner group authorizes both this SHA and the previous SHA during
rotation.
## What Changed
- Pin the thin caller to the authorized stacked-merge validator SHA.
## Verification
- Ran actionlint on both pull request workflows.
- Ran the external routing suite against the trusted workflow and
caller.
- Verified that the runner group authorizes both immutable workflow
versions.
## Risks
A bad pin can stop CI. The target is on master, the previous SHA stays
authorized, and the caller change is a one-line reversible pin update.
> For core feature work, check ROADMAP.md first and discuss it in #dev
before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work
may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See
CONTRIBUTING.md.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex on GPT-5. The exact deployment ID and context-window size
are not exposed. The model used reasoning, tool use, GitHub API access,
and local code execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used with version and capability
details
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have linked an existing public item and described the issue
in-PR
- [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues
or links
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Pull request checks protect the application and its contributors.
> - The trusted CI gate verifies signed event data against live GitHub
state.
> - GitHub gives a stacked pull request a synthetic merge commit for its
base stack.
> - The current validator expects the raw base SHA as the first merge
parent.
> - That assumption sends safe stacked pull requests to GitHub-hosted
runners.
> - This pull request validates the synthetic base merge and its
ancestry explicitly.
> - The benefit is safe automatic AWS routing for approved stacked pull
requests.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #12455
Refs #12456
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The trusted runner gate validates merge commits for master-based pull
requests but rejects GitHub synthetic base merges for stacked pull
requests.
**Subsystem affected**
GitHub Actions pull request identity and merge-state validation.
**Current behavior**
A trusted stacked pull request passes all numeric identity checks. The
gate fails closed because the first event merge parent is a GitHub
synthetic base merge instead of the raw base snapshot SHA.
**Proposed behavior**
The gate verifies the current base-ref tip, base-snapshot ancestry,
identical event and live merge parents, the child head parent, the
synthetic base merge parents, and identical event and live merge trees.
**Reason and benefit**
The change preserves fail-closed live-state validation while allowing
approved stacked pull requests to use the isolated AWS Fleet.
**Breaking changes**
None for untrusted contributors. Trusted stacked pull requests can
select AWS after the caller pins this workflow version.
**Additional context**
GitHub builds a stacked test merge in two steps. It first merges the
stack base into its own current base. It then uses that synthetic commit
as the first parent of the child test merge.
## What Changed
- Fetch and validate the current base branch ref.
- Require the event base snapshot to remain an ancestor of that ref.
- Validate direct and synthetic base merge parent shapes.
- Preserve the existing child-head, live-state, merge-tree, repository,
and actor checks.
## Verification
- Ran actionlint on the trusted workflow.
- Ran the external routing suite.
- Added positive coverage for the GitHub stacked merge shape.
- Added fail-closed coverage for replaced base ancestry and a synthetic
merge that omits the current base ref.
- Replayed the checks against the live merge shape for pull request
#12340.
## Risks
The gate has more GitHub API reads. Its five-minute timeout and
fail-closed behavior limit the effect of API errors. The accepted
synthetic commit must be the same in the event and live merge, must
include the current base branch as a direct parent, and must produce the
same merge tree.
> For core feature work, check ROADMAP.md first and discuss it in #dev
before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work
may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See
CONTRIBUTING.md.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex on GPT-5. The exact deployment ID and context-window size
are not exposed. The model used reasoning, tool use, GitHub API access,
and local code execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used with version and capability
details
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have linked existing public items and described the issue in-PR
- [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues
or links
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Pull request checks protect the application and its contributors.
> - The trusted CI workflow sends approved contributors to isolated AWS
runners.
> - Pull request #12455 added safe support for non-master base branches.
> - The active caller still filters for master and uses the previous
immutable workflow SHA.
> - This pull request removes the base-branch trigger filter and pins
the caller to the authorized stack-aware SHA.
> - The benefit is that trusted stacked pull requests can use the AWS
fleet automatically.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #12455
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The active pull request caller only triggers for master and selects the
master-only trusted workflow version.
**Subsystem affected**
GitHub Actions pull request routing.
**Current behavior**
Trusted stacked pull requests either do not trigger the default caller
or use a branch-local older caller. Their heavy jobs remain in the
GitHub-hosted queue.
**Proposed behavior**
The caller triggers for every pull request base branch. It uses the
authorized stack-aware workflow at full SHA
d6b33d6c16.
**Reason and benefit**
The change sends heavy jobs from approved stacked pull requests to the
100-runner AWS Fleet. Unlisted contributors still receive the normal
GitHub-hosted checks.
**Breaking changes**
Trusted pull requests with non-master base branches now use AWS.
Untrusted pull requests continue to use GitHub-hosted runners.
**Additional context**
The runner group currently authorizes both the old and new immutable
workflow SHAs. The old SHA stays authorized until outstanding runs
finish.
## What Changed
- Remove the caller base-branch filter so stacked pull requests trigger
CI.
- Pin the thin caller to the authorized stack-aware reusable workflow
SHA.
## Verification
- Ran actionlint on both pull request workflow files.
- Ran the external routing test suite against the new reusable workflow
and thin caller.
- Verified that the runner group authorizes both immutable SHAs and only
the Paperclip repository.
## Risks
A bad pin can stop pull request CI. The target SHA is on master,
contains the reviewed reusable workflow, and is already authorized
beside the prior SHA. This gives the rotation a rollback path. Every
untrusted run still uses a GitHub-hosted gate and route.
> For core feature work, check ROADMAP.md first and discuss it in #dev
before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work
may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See
CONTRIBUTING.md.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex on GPT-5. The exact deployment ID and context-window size
are not exposed. The model used reasoning, tool use, GitHub API access,
and local code execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used with version and capability
details
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have linked an existing public item and described the issue
in-PR
- [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues
or links
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Pull request checks protect the application and its contributors.
> - The trusted CI workflow sends approved contributors to isolated AWS
runners.
> - The workflow currently limits AWS routing to pull requests that
target master.
> - Stacked pull requests target another branch and stay in the GitHub
queue.
> - This pull request keeps the identity checks and accepts a live
nonempty base branch in the Paperclip repository.
> - The benefit is that trusted stacked pull requests can use the AWS
fleet automatically.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The trusted pull request runner gate currently sends only master-based
pull requests to AWS.
**Subsystem affected**
GitHub Actions pull request routing.
**Current behavior**
A trusted contributor can pass all numeric identity checks. The gate
still selects GitHub-hosted runners when the pull request targets
another branch in a stack.
**Proposed behavior**
The gate accepts any nonempty base branch in the Paperclip base
repository. It still verifies the live base ref, base SHA, head SHA,
merge SHA, author ID, sender ID, and triggering actor ID.
**Reason and benefit**
Large pull request stacks currently add all heavy jobs to the limited
GitHub-hosted queue. This change lets approved contributors use the
isolated AWS fleet for those jobs.
**Breaking changes**
Trusted pull requests that target a non-master branch now use AWS
instead of GitHub-hosted runners. Untrusted pull requests keep the
current GitHub-hosted route.
**Additional context**
Pull request #12339 is the master-based first item in a stack. Its child
pull requests show this queue pattern.
## What Changed
- Replace the master-only route check with a nonempty base-ref check.
Keep the existing base-repository and live-state checks.
## Verification
- Ran actionlint on .github/workflows/pr-trusted.yml.
- Ran the external routing test suite. It passed the trusted
stacked-base case and all fail-closed identity cases.
## Risks
The AWS trust boundary now includes code from a non-master base branch
when the current pull request author, sender, and triggering actor are
all approved numeric GitHub IDs. An approved account can already submit
arbitrary head code. The runner remains isolated and has no production
access or repository secrets.
> For core feature work, check ROADMAP.md first and discuss it in #dev
before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work
may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See
CONTRIBUTING.md.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex on GPT-5. The exact deployment ID and context-window size
are not exposed. The model used reasoning, tool use, GitHub API access,
and local code execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with Fixes: # / Closes #
/ Refs # OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue
template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Pull request checks protect the runtime and authorization boundaries
> - The same checks must produce the same result on GitHub and RunsOn
Ubuntu images
> - One runtime test assumed that a shell PID always owns the listening
socket
> - One watchdog test denied issue reads while it tried to test
assignment denial
> - These assumptions caused image-sensitive failures during the AWS
runner canary
> - This pull request tests the production contracts directly
> - The benefit is a reliable CI result across both runner images
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #12350
## What Changed
- Verify stale service ownership through the existing process-group
ownership helper.
- Allow normal issue reads in the watchdog reassignment fixture.
- Assert that the watchdog reassignment reaches and denies the
`tasks:assign` guard.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts
-t "does not reuse a stopped auto-port service port while another
process owns it"`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts -t
"still enforces normal assignment guards for watchdog reassignment"`
- Ran the complete issue agent mutation ownership suite six times. All
522 test executions passed.
- Ran the runtime regression case eight times. All eight test executions
passed.
## Risks
- Low risk. This pull request changes test fixtures and assertions only.
- The process-group assertion matches the ownership rule that the
runtime already uses.
- The watchdog fixture still denies `issue:mutate` and `tasks:assign`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex with GPT-5.6 (`gpt-5.6-sol`). The model used reasoning,
tool use, and code execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with Fixes, Closes, or
Refs OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue
template
- [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues
or links
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id
- [x] I have run relevant tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes. No
documentation change is required for this test-only fix.
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Remote agent adapters use a process-session wrapper inside a
sandbox.
> - Some supported sandbox filesystems do not report inode creation
time.
> - The wrapper rejects a zero creation time before it launches the
agent.
> - This pull request accepts that filesystem shape and keeps the
existing change-time probe.
> - The benefit is that valid sandbox runs can start without a
birth-time field.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
The remote process-session wrapper exited before it launched the agent
when the sandbox filesystem reported `birthtimeMs` as zero.
**Expected behavior**
The wrapper must start on a filesystem that does not report inode
creation time.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Start the remote process-session wrapper.
2. Make `lstat()` report a zero `birthtimeMs` for its session directory.
3. Observe that the pre-fix wrapper terminates before the child process
starts.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Reproduced from `66e1c0df8b23cb8354b36dd446d9548dc4389191`.
**Deployment mode**
Self-hosted server with a remote sandbox runtime.
## What Changed
- Allow a zero reported creation time for process-session directories.
- Keep the probe that rejects a creation time copied from change time.
- Add a regression test that launches and stops a session with zero
birth time.
## Verification
- `npx vitest run
packages/adapter-utils/src/execution-target-stdin-race.test.ts`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-utils typecheck`
## Risks
A filesystem without creation time can reduce the precision of
sandbox-local path-swap detection. This change does not change host-file
or Paperclip API authority. A follow-up will review that larger security
posture alignment.
> I checked `ROADMAP.md`. This is a focused compatibility bug fix for
the existing sandbox-agent roadmap area.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex — GPT-5.6. The exact deployment suffix and context-window
size are not exposed. The model used reasoning, shell tools, and code
execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - New organizations create their first agent through the onboarding
wizard
> - The wizard does not show provider sign-in when a host credential is
absent or unknown
> - The create step also gives unclear feedback when the provider needs
authentication
> - This pull request adds a safe auth signal and a provider sign-in
step for sandbox drivers
> - The benefit is a clearer onboarding path with no token or account
data in the signal
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting (server API, shared types, and UI)
**Problem or motivation**
The onboarding wizard can fail when the selected provider needs
authentication. It does not tell the person how to complete sign-in.
**Proposed solution**
Add a status-only provider auth signal. Show the sign-in panel for
sandbox drivers when the signal says `absent` or `unknown`. Apply a
stored Claude login to the new agent and block creation when the adapter
test reports missing authentication.
**Alternatives considered**
The wizard could hide the sign-in panel when the signal read fails. This
would hide a needed action, so this pull request shows the panel when
the signal is unknown.
**Roadmap alignment**
The change supports the roadmap goal for scoped and audited credential
bindings.
**Additional context**
The auth signal returns only `present`, `absent`, or `unknown`. It never
returns a token, identifier, or account name.
## What Changed
- Add `GET /api/companies/:companyId/adapters/:type/auth-signal` with
company and permission checks.
- Add shared auth-signal types and the UI query path.
- Apply a stored Claude login by reference without reading its token.
- Show the provider sign-in panel only for sandbox drivers with
interactive terminal support.
- Block agent creation when the provider test reports missing
authentication.
- Add route, wizard, and end-to-end test coverage.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server test adapter-auth-signal-routes`
passes 50 tests.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui test OnboardingWizard` passes 69 tests.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec tsc --noEmit` exits with code 0.
- The `e2e_shards` lane runs `tests/e2e/onboarding.spec.ts`.
## Risks
The route reads a host-local readiness signal. It returns `unknown` on
read errors and never exposes credential data. The UI may add a sign-in
step when the signal is unavailable.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, extended reasoning, tool use, and code execution.
The exact context window was not provided.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` /
`Closes: #` / `Refs: #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the
relevant issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Summary
- validate the event base ref/SHA against the live PR state instead of
requiring the moving `master` branch tip to remain unchanged while a
hosted gate queues
- retain exact event/live merge parent and tree validation, plus
author/sender/rerun checks
## Canary finding
A seven-minute hosted-gate queue allowed `master` to advance. Requiring
the live branch tip to equal the event base snapshot would route
otherwise valid trusted runs back to GitHub-hosted indefinitely on a
busy repository.
## Validation
- actionlint and workflow-contract tests pass
- internal routing harness passes
- replaced PR base snapshot, stale head, changed merge parent/tree, and
untrusted actors all remain fail-closed
- AWS routing remains disabled during rotation
## Summary
- use `${{ github.sha }}` as the event merge commit validated by the
trusted gate
- retain exact base/head parent and identical-tree comparison against
the current live merge ref
## Canary finding
GitHub leaves `pull_request.merge_commit_sha` empty on some `opened`
payloads even though the workflow runs against a valid merge ref. The
gate safely fell back to GitHub-hosted and no EC2 instance launched.
## Validation
- `actionlint .github/workflows/pr-trusted.yml .github/workflows/pr.yml`
- `node --test ./scripts/__tests__/e2e-shard.test.mjs`
- internal routing harness passes and asserts `EVENT_MERGE_SHA` is
sourced from `${{ github.sha }}`
- AWS routing remains disabled during rotation
Dotta
github-actions[bot]
Nicky Leach